Anyone who doesn't agree with this is openly petty and jealous of NHL players. That agreement right there is more than fair. The contracts that were offered and signed by the owners get honoured, anyone that has a new contract in the new cba all falls under the 50% rule. How is that not fair. The NHL has to live up to agreements that it signed and the PA moves to the 50% line that everyone wants to see, 50/50. The NHL has 50/50 moving forward, isn't that what it wants, economic garuanteed stability. If you didn't like your damn 12 and 15 year agreements, then you shouldn't have signed players for that much, time to own it and sign the deal and get hockey moving.

Click to expand...

But that's not a 50/50 deal when you are excluding tons of contracts. I hate those stupid 12-15 year deals, too. I don't think the owners who made use of them should get an unfair advantage going forward.

But that's not a 50/50 deal when you are excluding tons of contracts. I hate those stupid 12-15 year deals, too. I don't think the owners who made use of them should get an unfair advantage going forward.

Click to expand...

If the owners didn't want to pay for a 12-15 year deal they shouldn't have signed it in the first place. The NHL moving FORWARD is on a true 50/50, it is going to take some time to get to a true 50/50 split because the owners and gms are retarded and thought a lifetime contract that exceeded the length of a CBA was a GREAT THING!! The owners made some incredibly stupid mistakes, OWN UP, I think between the NHL's deal and the Player's propsal and actual deal is there, HOWEVER:

When you have to deal with that kind of arrogance, why the **** should the PA ever bother presenting a proposal, all three proposals shot down in 10 minutes WITHOUT ANY dialogue. But Fehr is still the big bad guy.

And yes @HuskerTornado It doesn't ACTUALLY become a true 50/50 because of the honouring of contracts until later in the deal, however I thought this deal was suppose to be about long term stability of the league and achieving a 50/50 revenue split. I'm sorry, the players would like it done gradually and fairly with the contracts that nobody forced the owners to sign being honoured, FOR SHAME PLAYERS!

@DMC How would the Owners achieve an unfair advantage with those contracts going forward? All you have to do is add in the proposal the league made where if a player retires the cap hit is on the clubs books forever and ever and I think it still works out ok.

The owners also foot the bill for player equipment, hotels, meals, flights, staff, etc. People are acting as if the owners pocket all of their percentage dollars.

They're all replaceable, but a fair deal should be done.

Click to expand...

Though the owners are paying for that, most of that stuff(Equipment/hotels/meals/fuel/flights) from what I understand is allowed to be DEDUCTED from HRR BEFORE players get their share. So take the 3.3 Billion dollar pie, minus the expenses(food/fuel), then AFTER that, take 57% and give it to the players. Things like Management and the like are not deductiable(GM/coaches salary and the like). So no, the Owners don't pocket all their percentage dollars, but they are also not paying out of pocket for everything, they got to expense things.

If the players took the NHL's deal, they'd lose $1.6 billion over the course of the CBA. If the players lose this season, they'll lose $1.74 billion just this year.

Click to expand...

Why do they players HAVE to lose anything? Everyones here acts like the players HAVE to give up everything(mostly personal feelings that players make to much money), they don't, they are willing to meet the NHL at 50/50 WITHOUT having immediate cuts to their salary, in order to help the NHL achieve more stability and help some of the struggling teams.

If the players end up losing their entire year of salary, it won't be the NHLs 50/50 deal that ever gets accepted, we won't see the NHL for a LONG LONG time if thats the case, think 2014 and scab players at best.

If the players took the NHL's deal, they'd lose $1.6 billion over the course of the CBA. If the players lose this season, they'll lose $1.74 billion just this year.

Click to expand...

Why do they players HAVE to lose anything? Everyones here acts like the players HAVE to give up everything(mostly personal feelings that players make to much money), they don't, they are willing to meet the NHL at 50/50 WITHOUT having immediate cuts to their salary, in order to help the NHL achieve more stability and help some of the struggling teams.

If the players end up losing their entire year of salary, it won't be the NHLs 50/50 deal that ever gets accepted, we won't see the NHL for a LONG LONG time if thats the case, think 2014 and scab players at best.

Click to expand...

lol, that's not the reason. Why don't I jump to conclusions too and say you hate the owners because they are very wealthy?

I don't hate the owners at all, I hate the greed/hypocrisy/stupidy the owners are showing in this negotiation, if the players were on the other side striking or demanding a 12-25% raise I would be against them, both sides have a good deal as it is right now, this shouldn't be where it is right now, we should all be watching and talking about hockey rather than a CBA. As it is, the PA has put forward three deals that achieve exactly what everyone in here and what the owners want as well. The deals are fair to both sides, but still most of the pro-owner posters here are so against the PA it's laughable. Why do the players need an immediate reduction of salaries, Why? The NHL has operated for the last several years at 57% revenue share, what is couple of few more years while the NHL gradually moves to a 50/50 split, it's not going to kill the NHL or any teams that didn't deserve to be moved/contracted anyways.

So if your not against the players because you think they make to much, then why? What is it that you think the players need to take any of the NHLs offers??

Say for arguments sake this deal was accepted. What happens to a player who has 10 years left on his deal? What happens to that $?

Click to expand...

Which deal are we talking about?

For the owners' deal? The player contract would be paid its usual amount minus an escrow amount, and at the end of the year all salaries leaguewide would be normalized to 50% of HRR and each player would get an escrow cheque that would bring his earnings in line with the 50% HRR mark. And with the owners' 5+ year provision, if that player were to retire, the full cap hit for the player would be charged to the team that signed the contract (even if that team isn't the team actually holding the player's rights).

For player deal #3? He would simply get the dollar amount his contract stipulates. How exactly they work the math to work out what new-contract players would earn (they're slated to have contracts normalize to 50% of HRR but how that is merged with the grandfathered contracts is a fun math exercise indeed) is a level of fine print we haven't seen yet.

I expect the owners' eventual counter may be a variant on PA deal #3. They may give the players year 1, and then Year 2 start normalizing even the grandfathered contracts. Which may be enough to get it to pass a PA vote because far less than 50% of the PA actually has contracts that extend beyond next summer.

Then the NHL would likely recoup this one time loss on salaries with expansion/relocation fees.

Say for arguments sake this deal was accepted. What happens to a player who has 10 years left on his deal? What happens to that $?

Click to expand...

Which deal, players or owners? If it's the owners, the owners will "make whole" the players contracts for the first year of the deal, the NHL has not 100% defined what make whole means, but essentially what I understand is the players is entitled to his FULL contractual salary in the first year of the cba, but the overage over 50% is spread out over the remaining years of the cba or something like that. In the remaining years of the deal the players salary is reduced in Escrow to what 50% of whatever HRR isdefined as. Their cap hit or actual dollars don't change technically speaking, however if the players collectively go over 50% of HRR, then Escrow would kick in and the players would have to give back the money over that 50%. For example, lasts years escrow was 12%, the rates would be much higher in the first few years of the deal unless NHL growth continue as fast as it has the last few years.

I'll go with the players third deal, cause that makes the most sense, and without hard numbers on the first two, it'd be bad guess work at best. In the PA's deal, players on current contracts would be entitled to everything they signed for up to 57% of league revenues(things like escrow and everything still apply). This garauntee is only good for the life of the CBA, and my guess is thats all the PA wants, cause after the 5/6 years of the CBA is done, those deals fall off of the big dollars. Those current contracts would be calculated A LOT differently than any new contracts. All new contracts would fall straight under the 50/50 and would never see the 57% the PA used to have. How exactly the cap and everything is going to be calculated is a little iffy, and is something that would need to be worked out.

Say for arguments sake this deal was accepted. What happens to a player who has 10 years left on his deal? What happens to that $?

Click to expand...

Which deal are we talking about?

For the owners' deal? The player contract would be paid its usual amount minus an escrow amount, and at the end of the year all salaries leaguewide would be normalized to 50% of HRR and each player would get an escrow cheque that would bring his earnings in line with the 50% HRR mark. And with the owners' 5+ year provision, if that player were to retire, the full cap hit for the player would be charged to the team that signed the contract (even if that team isn't the team actually holding the player's rights).

For player deal #3? He would simply get the dollar amount his contract stipulates. How exactly they work the math to work out what new-contract players would earn (they're slated to have contracts normalize to 50% of HRR but how that is merged with the grandfathered contracts is a fun math exercise indeed) is a level of fine print we haven't seen yet.

Click to expand...

Seems to me the fair thing to do is players who have a long ass deal should have special rules. The owners should be responsible for paying these players their full salary. If that means that they have to dip into their share of the 50/50 pie then so be it. They're the ones responsible for the contract in the first place.

As for if a healthy player retires the cap hit going back to the original team. I was under the impression that when a player retires, their contract is torn up & they no longer get paid. So if they're not being paid, why should there be a cap hit to anyone? I really don't get the logic behind that. If i'm wrong & a healthy retired player still collects a salary, then I say whoever owns his contract should be responsible for it. Someone wants to be stupid enough to help out some other club who signed some player to a 12 year deal, and he retires with 3 years left, then it's their problem now.

Sixty percent of the players have contracts beyond this season, and by making that offer, the NHLPA essentially said, "We have two kinds of members -- signed players and free agents. They should be handled at differently."
+As for the current contracts, here's what they could do. The players say an immediate cut to 50/50 means a 12 per cent escrow haircut, which they don't want. So create a separate equation for those players.

Maybe next year it's 53/47, moving down towards 50/50. Maybe it's a guaranteed minimum and maximum loss for these players. And every time one of them finishes their contract, they are subject to the "new rules" and 50/50. All of the math wizards on both sides are paid handsomely to figure out a way to make this work. Perhaps there's a better way of doing it I can't think of right now

But here’s the key: The NHL, a source told ESPN.com, reiterated to the NHLPA in Thursday’s meeting that it is willing to play ball on that concept, that it is willing to be more flexible in trying to find a solution to keep players "whole" on their contracts.

What do you know, something that is FAIR to current players under contract and helps the NHL is a real possibility, to bad Bettman can't have bad press by be willing to listen to a PA proposal. Look at the point Friedman makes, 40% of players would almost instantly be on the 50/50 CBA(combining all current free agents and next years crop). Yes, most of those are pretty well throw away contracts, the 3rd/4th liners, but there a couple of big ones as well, or ones that have potential to be big. By the end of the CBA you have a VAST majority of players under contract with this CBA and the next one is not going be some gigantic raise for the players. The Owners should be looking to the future and not an immdiate pay out.

The other thing I've noticed, the press has been overtly positive on the PA after this day, they have put out that they are more than willing to meet at 50/50, just they'd like to do it while being fair to the contracts that were signed under what was suppose to be honest negotiations.

I was under the impression that when a player retires, their contract is torn up & they no longer get paid.

Click to expand...

True, but under the old CBA, such players who retired while under a multi-year contract that began after they turned 35, even though the contract and actual money-paid was gone, the cap hit remained. The most recent example of this I remember is Rod Brind'Amour - he retired in the summer of 2010 but his full cap hit was counted against the Hurricanes for the year remaining on his contract. This is why Philadelphia was made such a laughingstock on the Pronger contract - they misread the rule and thought it didn't apply to him (he signed the contract before he turned 35 but it didn't take effect until after he turned 35). As soon as he signed it, it was a 'guaranteed' cap hit - no matter if or where he was playing it would count as cap hit. (though if he was on LTIR they would be allowed to exceed cap to replace him, which is largely what they've done so far).

The NHL is simply trying to adjust this rule to make the result match the original rule's intent. The rule's intent was to prevent teams from signing players deliberately beyond their likely retirement age and get away with cap savings when they retire. The error was thinking this would only happen for players signing contracts after turning 35 years old, because few contracts pre-2005 were longer than 5 years. But teams started signing 10+ year contracts on players under 35 to similar effect, and the NHL is seeking to get back to their original intent of making it no longer a cap benefit to deliberately sign a player for longer than his expected career.

As for if a healthy player retires the cap hit going back to the original team. I was under the impression that when a player retires, their contract is torn up & they no longer get paid. So if they're not being paid, why should there be a cap hit to anyone? I really don't get the logic behind that. If i'm wrong & a healthy retired player still collects a salary, then I say whoever owns his contract should be responsible for it. Someone wants to be stupid enough to help out some other club who signed some player to a 12 year deal, and he retires with 3 years left, then it's their problem now.

Click to expand...

The punishment is essentialy for cap circumvention. The contract was signed under the guise of giving a player a big pay day without having to play out the contract, while giving the team the cap flexibility to use that guy worth the big pay day by getting other competent players. The thing is the NHL doesn't want the cap hit staying with whatever team acquires him because then it will prevent ANY trading of that contract. As well it was the ORIGINAL teams intention that the player NOT be playing by the time those lower $ years kicked in and the cap hit taken off the books. That team was gaining a distinct advantage due to that should be the one that bears the burden, and not an acquiring team who may feel that players veteran pressence may help them in some way.

Again this won't punish ALL the teams that signed those silly deals, only those where the deal was so obvious that the player was never going to finish out the contract. NJ, VAN, CHI, PHI are the top prospects that I can see most effected, if that clause even manages to last past the next CBA anyways.

I think Saga, what trouble you're having with your communication is that while you're obviously pro player, you're taking any post that isn't brimming owner hatred, or player praise, as pro ownership. The very fact that a few of us commented on Bettman's negotiation strategy without calling him an insulant douchebag caused you to WOTRage for pages.

My opinion on this is that I am not pro owner, nor am I pro player. I think everyone involved has a small wang complex. The very fact that you have solidified your support for the players so thoroughly is confusing. In negotiations between rich millionaires everyone wants more than they deserve, which is exactly what's happening right now. Pretty much every child in the world could look at each individual piece of the CBA and identify the obvious fair middle ground. The fair way to split the money is 50/50. Any money spent on the team should be deducted (hotels, medical staff etc; ) because it is a mutually beneficial expense. The players need to be healthy and flown to their games to earn their pay cheque, and the owners need their players healthy and in different cities to do the job they're being paid to do. Signed contracts should obviously be honoured. Don't sign your name to something if you don't want to do it. Anything else should be illegal. Therefore, considering that, the owners should feel no obligation to make a gradual switch to a true 50/50 split. If they will honour their contracts given out, why should newly signed players get anything more? There should be no limit on contract lengths. That's nonsense. If they don't want to give out ten year deals, then don't. What should happen is the obvious fix for cap circumvention should be plugged, and each individual year of the contract counts towards the cap for the money that player makes in the given year. ****ing problem solved. There shouldn't be clauses in the CBA that hurt the players' ability to earn just because owners want to protect themselves from themselves.

Anyway, I know there are more issues than I've laid out, but those seem to be the sticking points in negotiations, and that's my overly simplistic view of the situation. I don't really care if it makes me look stupid at this point. It's sickening that both sides are holding fans and the lower tiered players that need to earn a pay cheque hostage just so these absurdly rich individuals at the top of the heap can have a pissing match and one side can claim they won as opposed to making a fair deal. It's hilariously ironic that the business of a game based on teamwork and sportsmanship can be so utterly petty and greedy.

But that's not a 50/50 deal when you are excluding tons of contracts. I hate those stupid 12-15 year deals, too. I don't think the owners who made use of them should get an unfair advantage going forward.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There has to be some balance between honouring those deals and not allowing those few teams some kind of grandfathered advantage under the new CBA.

Which may be enough to get it to pass a PA vote because far less than 50% of the PA actually has contracts that extend beyond next summer.

Click to expand...

I'm curious how well the current owners' proposal would do in a PA vote. I bet pretty close to half the league would be willing to go back to work under those terms (more-or-less). The guys currently not under contract can't have any interest in this at all. Their end game, +/- a point or two, is going to be 50% regardless. Are they willing to lose a season so Weber and Parise can realize the full value of their ridiculous contracts?

lol, ESPN is calling the canceling of games today "discouraging news for hockey fans"...

No, it isn't, it was expected, you clowns. There was no chance of the season starting before November 2nd and the NHL canceled games through November 1. Those games weren't being played no matter what happens with the CBA...

ESPN can't wait to spew sewer on hockey. Usually bad news is all you hear from them.

lol, ESPN is calling the canceling of games today "discouraging news for hockey fans"...

No, it isn't, it was expected, you clowns. There was no chance of the season starting before November 2nd and the NHL canceled games through November 1. Those games weren't being played no matter what happens with the CBA...

ESPN can't wait to spew sewer on hockey. Usually bad news is all you hear from them.

Click to expand...

You're taking it way too personally. It IS discouraging news, and a few days ago they were talking about starting in November and still playing all 82 games, so, uh?

lol, ESPN is calling the canceling of games today "discouraging news for hockey fans"...

No, it isn't, it was expected, you clowns. There was no chance of the season starting before November 2nd and the NHL canceled games through November 1. Those games weren't being played no matter what happens with the CBA...

ESPN can't wait to spew sewer on hockey. Usually bad news is all you hear from them.

Click to expand...

You're taking it way too personally. It IS discouraging news, and a few days ago they were talking about starting in November and still playing all 82 games, so, uh?

lol, ESPN is calling the canceling of games today "discouraging news for hockey fans"...

No, it isn't, it was expected, you clowns. There was no chance of the season starting before November 2nd and the NHL canceled games through November 1. Those games weren't being played no matter what happens with the CBA...

ESPN can't wait to spew sewer on hockey. Usually bad news is all you hear from them.

Click to expand...

You're taking it way too personally. It IS discouraging news, and a few days ago they were talking about starting in November and still playing all 82 games, so, uh?

Click to expand...

Someone missed the entire point of his post..

Click to expand...

I suppose that's possible, if you're assuming "those games weren't being played no matter what" to mean that they "wouldn't be played on their originally scheduled dates in October, but perhaps at a later date in a full 82-game season condensed into a shorter time period than usual." I am not willing to make that same assumption, as I believe it would be quite a stretch. The entire point of his post was to bitch about ESPN, we're not dealing with Stanley Kubrick here.

You're taking it way too personally. It IS discouraging news, and a few days ago they were talking about starting in November and still playing all 82 games, so, uh?

Click to expand...

Someone missed the entire point of his post..

Click to expand...

I suppose that's possible, if you're assuming "those games weren't being played no matter what" to mean that they "wouldn't be played on their originally scheduled dates in October, but perhaps at a later date in a full 82-game season condensed into a shorter time period than usual." I am not willing to make that same assumption, as I believe it would be quite a stretch. The entire point of his post was to bitch about ESPN, we're not dealing with Stanley Kubrick here.

Click to expand...

...those games through November 1st were not going to take place on those nights. Period. No one that has been paying any attention to the situation would have suddenly been broadsided by this news today. Today's cancellations were nothing more than a formality. The current CBA conversations were not talking about starting before November 2nd, which was the NHL's proposed start to the season, with a full 82 game slate. Did you go to bed last night thinking those games up until November 1st were going to played on those nights, especially given what has been coming from negotiations? Try to be less of a dick and use your other head.

It is basically settled. The owners got their 50 percent. All that is left to be decided is how much salt GB wants to run in the player's wounds.

The players have conceded 50/50. All that is left to be decided is how the two sides arrive at that point. Any delay from here on out is clearly the fault of the hardline owners who are simply incapable of rational foresight.

That's a really bad article. He says the players shouldn't be looked at as blameless victims, then outlines all the concessions they made during the last lockout, where they lost a whole season of pay. He explains that the owners are getting record revenues under the current (well, now expired I guess) deal and that the players wanted to simply continue playing with that same deal in place. Then he says, well wat r da playars goin 2 giv up cuz it's all they'are fallt.

So I guess the minute you doth protest, "please don't **** me in the ass", you are no longer a blameless victim of rape, but in fact a willing participant who probably should have at the very least tossed in a complimentary reach-around as well.

Serious question that popped into my head because of dmc. When Fehr and the NHLPA receive an offer, is there like a vote for them to accept it? I've heard the NHL lockout requirement is not a huge majority needed (some will tell you it was not 30 for 30 if you believe them)

Serious question that popped into my head because of dmc. When Fehr and the NHLPA receive an offer, is there like a vote for them to accept it? I've heard the NHL lockout requirement is not a huge majority needed (some will tell you it was not 30 for 30 if you believe them)

Click to expand...

Only if the PA decides to put it to a vote. That's part of the problem, IMO.

Serious question that popped into my head because of dmc. When Fehr and the NHLPA receive an offer, is there like a vote for them to accept it? I've heard the NHL lockout requirement is not a huge majority needed (some will tell you it was not 30 for 30 if you believe them)

Click to expand...

Only if the PA decides to put it to a vote. That's part of the problem, IMO.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Is there a process then for bringing it to a vote? Like, is it only brought to a vote if it's likely to pass? Any idea on % needed?

"The NHLPA, a source told ESPN.com, told its players on a conference call Tuesday evening that the league only wanted to discuss the "Make Whole" provision as long as the players accepted the rest of the league's offer in full."

So we'll discuss how you guys can pay yourselfs some extra money, however, BEFORE that you need accept everything else we have offered, and then even after you accepted that there is no guarantee we will negotiate fairly on the "Make Whole" provision. So much for starting the season on November 2nd.

Not exactly, under the PAs third provision, the PA actually makes two distinct camps of players, 1.) guys under contract and 2.) guys not under contract. And under their proposal one group would be making 7% more than the other group, thats not viewing each member as equal.

So it a PR game when the players say the league won't negotiate, but when the league released their entire offer to the public (and only 24 hours later claims they "don't negotiate publicly), that is what? Just good-faith bargaining?

"Celebrity worship"?

I can assure you I don't give a flying **** about any particular player in this league.

What "skews" (I would say "forms", but semantics) my perception is the fact that 1) this is the second prolonged lock-out in 7 years and the third under Gary Bettman's watch. He has created a toxic relationship between players and owners that only serves to exacerbate the problems of the league; 2) that the reason for the lock-outs are issues that only arise from an excessively convoluted salary cap system that turns every single aspect of league management into a contentious battle over revenue streams and entitlement to them; 3) from a personal perspective, my team does not need a single concession from the PA in order to succeed, I couldn't care less about whether or not the Phoenix Coyotes or Nashville Predators can compete with the Leafs, Flyers or Rangers. As far as I am concerned, I am being denied NHL entertainment so that economic failures can continue to fail, only slower than previously; and 4) this is a pretty obvious strategy of the owners. They don't worry about lock-outs anymore so the faster the players cave this time, the more likely there is to be another lockout as soon as this new CBA expires.

In my view, this cycle of lock-outs and roll backs will not stop until the players take a stand and show the owners that they won't be so easily bullied. A speedy surrender by the players will only embolden the owners for their next lockout when they demand 60% of HRR.